Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_ganttA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the no-auth requirement, the scheduling behavior ('LoopGantt schedules it with its critical-path engine'), the outputs (picture, dates, critical path, link), and an explicit instruction to show the link. It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but it is substantially transparent for this tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness4/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is a dense paragraph with no filler; key facts are front-loaded ('no account or API key needed') and each sentence contributes either usage context, authoring instructions, or output behavior. It is slightly long, but every clause adds value.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a tool with no output schema, the description does explain the return value: a picture of the chart, dates, critical path, and a view/export/save link. It also covers the key task-authoring rules. It could be more complete by describing the returned image format or handling of invalid dependency references, but overall an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful authoring guidance: list tasks in execution order, use realistic working-day durations, use 0-based predecessor positions, and use { task, type, lag } for typed links or lag. This reinforces and extends the schema by explaining the expected mental model for creating a valid task list.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Gantt chart from a task list.' It also clarifies the tool's scope (no account/API key, author a plan, critical-path scheduling). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like schedule_project, so it falls short of full differentiation.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives clear context on when to use the tool: when the user wants a Gantt chart, needs no authentication, and expects the agent to author a task plan. However, it never states when to prefer an alternative tool or exclude schedule_project/list_templates/get_template, leaving comparison to inference.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• get_templateA
  4.1/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation ('Get') and the core output behavior ('task list with durations'), but does not cover failure behavior, data freshness, or whether the returned template is a mutable copy.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, specifies the returned content, and names the intended next step. Every phrase contributes information; there is no filler.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness5/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a simple one-parameter tool with fully described schema, the description tells the agent what is retrieved, what it contains, and how it should be used next. The workflow connection to list_templates and create_gantt is sufficient for correct invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, slug, is already described as a 'Template slug from list_templates'. The description adds 'by slug' but not new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  States a specific verb and resource: 'Get one industry template by slug', and clarifies the result is 'its task list with durations'. It also differentiates from list_templates by emphasizing 'one' template, and points to create_gantt as the downstream consumer.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The phrase 'by slug' combined with the schema note 'Template slug from list_templates' establishes when to use this tool: after listing templates and before creating a gantt. It does not explicitly state exclusions, but the intended workflow is clear.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• list_templatesA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation and describes the kind of data returned, but it omits details like response shape, ordering, pagination, or authentication expectations. The absence of these is a moderate gap for a no-annotation tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a concise workflow showing how this tool connects to its siblings.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a zero-parameter listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and how to proceed. It could be slightly stronger by noting whether the list is exhaustive or filterable and by describing the output structure, especially since no output schema exists, but the core information an agent needs is present.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  There are zero parameters, so the input schema leaves nothing to explain. The description adds value by clarifying what the returned list will contain, satisfying the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('LoopGantt's industry project templates') and states the key returned information (task counts and typical durations). It also differentiates itself from siblings by showing this is the discovery step before get_template and create_gantt.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description clearly places the tool in a workflow: list templates, fetch one with get_template, adapt it, then create_gantt. It names the related sibling tools and gives practical context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it against schedule_project.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• schedule_projectA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation has no persistent side effect ("without storing anything"), which is valuable context. It does not describe return format or failure behavior, but for a pure computation tool the core behavioral fact is disclosed.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is three focused sentences: what the tool computes, example user questions it answers, and the sibling alternative. There is no filler or repetition of schema content, and the most important fact (non-persistent computation) is front-loaded.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness4/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a fairly complex scheduling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description still covers the key facts: what it does, what values it produces, and which sibling to choose instead. It does not document the exact return structure, but the listed outputs and schema together are sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is high (83%), so the schema already documents parameter meanings such as tasks, holidays, workDays, and startDate. The description adds only a useful hint that the input shape matches create_gantt and that name is optional, which is already implied by the schema; no major parameter burden is added.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Compute a schedule without storing anything" and names the concrete outputs: "dates, critical path, float and project end." It also distinguishes itself from create_gantt by contrasting a computed schedule with a chart an agent can open, so an agent can tell siblings apart.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines5/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Usage is explicit: the description provides exact user intents that map to this tool ("what is the critical path?", "when would this finish?", "how much slack does X have?"). It also names the alternative condition: "Use create_gantt when the user wants a chart they can open." This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.